论文标题
大学通过书目数据库的眼光：Google Scholar，Scopus和Web of Science的追溯增长比较
Universities through the Eyes of Bibliographic Databases: A Retroactive Growth Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science
论文作者
论文摘要
这项研究的目的是确定基于GS的URL方法的适用性，以考虑到大学的学术产出指标的有效近似，考虑到三个方面（追溯性增长，相关性和覆盖率）。为此，选择了一组100所土耳其大学作为案例研究。在两种不同的测量迭代（2014年和2018年）中捕获了科学网络（WOS），Scopus和GS（2000年至2013年）的生产率。此外，从WOS中检索了14个以14个研究为重点大学的子集发表的18,174个文件，验证了它们在官方大学网络领域内的GS的存在。研究结果表明，GS的追溯增长是不可预测的，并且取决于每所大学，因此很难在机构层面进行评估。否则，GS（基于URL的方法）与WOS和Scopus（选定来源）之间生产率的相关性是中等积极的，尽管它取决于大学，出版年和测量年份。最后，在官方大学网站中，在分析的18,174篇文章中只有16％在其他GS来源中被索引。这项工作证明，基于URL计算GS机构生产率的方法对于WOS和Scopus索引的总数，至少至少在所分析的国家背景下，这并不是一个很好的替代方法。但是，主要原因与GS的运作无关，而是缺乏大学对开放访问的承诺。
The purpose of this study is to ascertain the suitability of GS's url-based method as a valid approximation of universities' academic output measures, taking into account three aspects (retroactive growth, correlation, and coverage). To do this, a set of 100 Turkish universities were selected as a case study. The productivity in Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and GS (2000 to 2013) were captured in two different measurement iterations (2014 and 2018). In addition, a total of 18,174 documents published by a subset of 14 research-focused universities were retrieved from WoS, verifying their presence in GS within the official university web domain. Findings suggest that the retroactive growth in GS is unpredictable and dependent on each university, making this parameter hard to evaluate at the institutional level. Otherwise, the correlation of productivity between GS (url-based method) and WoS and Scopus (selected sources) is moderately positive, even though it varies depending on the university, the year of publication, and the year of measurement. Finally, only 16% out of 18,174 articles analyzed were indexed in the official university website, although up to 84% were indexed in other GS sources. This work proves that the url-based method to calculate institutional productivity in GS is not a good proxy for the total number of publications indexed in WoS and Scopus, at least in the national context analyzed. However, the main reason is not directly related to the operation of GS, but with a lack of universities' commitment to open access.
